Maybe mobilization (good word!) is a better expression than development in chess too. Although "development" to me suggests a steady growth, or expansion, it doesn't necessarily suggest a planned one. However, mobilization suggests to me development with purpose.

...his credo was "Get there firstest with the mostest." Whether that was his credo or not, that's what he did. He won with quick, and accurate, development.

 

I rather suspect that in schools of military strategy you'll hear Forrest's notion expressed as mobilization far more often than as development. Indeed, rapid mobilization as a military concept may date back to Sun Tzu or earlier, but it most certainly is a vital element in the development of the armed forces of the United States today. That is, we develop (through funding, recruitment, training, and retention) forces that can mobilize anywhere in the world within a few hours.

 

Likewise in chess: as players develop their understanding of strategic principles, they become more adept at mobilizing their forces on the chessboard. 

Possibly the greatest general in the American Civil War was Nathan Bedforfd Forrest, a slave trader-turned-soldier-turned-cavalry-leader. He succeeded time and time again against improbable odds, never losing a single fight until the very last days of the war. It's said (though, it's not universally accepted) that his credo was "Get there firstest with the mostest." Whether that was his credo or not, that's what he did. He won with quick, and accurate, development.

 

Morphy is a difficult player to discuss.  Many people think he won as he did because the players of his time were weak.  That's nonesense, of course. There were many extraordinary players in his day.  Morphy won because he was better. Not by today's standards, of course. But comparing then and now is an exercse in absurdity, since today chess is a field of study and a career. In Morphy's day it was a diversion and recreation.  Morphy was a lazy individual. Whereas even Capablanca, another prodigy who also had a lazy streak, would spend the necessary time to fully understand a position and analyze it properly (which really didn't take a lot of time for him), Morphy was contend to use his immediate impression (which was generally excellent, though not always, by any means), feeling secure that whatever trouble he got himself into, he would be able to get out of, and that his opponent would make at least one weak move that would lead to his downfall.  Sometimes Morphy's quick calculations were off. If industry had been one of his virtues, he may have been unstoppable.

Some people are wont to say that Morphy succeeded because he was the first player to understand the value of development (there's that word again!). More nonsense. Most players back then understood they had to get their pieces out quickly and with as much effect as possible, but few, as you imply, really understood the more subtle issues involved in development.  One of the best, and most popular, openings of that time was the Evans Gambit.  Morphy felt it was, with best play, a losing game for white, even though, with the Evans, white gets great development - quick and effective piece play, control of the center, attacking chances right from the get-go. But Morphy, even feeling as he did about the gamit, played a great many Evans as white and black and won around 95% of the games.  Morphy played numerous odds games, even giving a knight to strong players, and generally won. Would simple development win at knight odds? Doubtful. Simply trading down pieces would insure a win to his opponents. But Morphy usually took what army he had at his disposal and got there firstest with the mostest.

Some poeple will also try to say that Morphy understood positional chess better than his contemporaries. I'm not so sure. Phililor and Bourdonnais played interesting positional games. Staunton surely did, as did Szen, Paulsen and others. Morphy had an intuitive positional sense, but really little positional theory.  He was a tactician and an opening expert. His opening knowledge usually gave him a good middle game and his tactical sense generally won the game. He was a lot like Anderssen (only quicker) with few of Anderssen's weaknesses.

 

Unfortunately, NB Forrest was also the founder and first Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Thanks batgirl.  

 

1.Nf3 blocks the mobility of the f-pawn and assures Black that a King's Gambit is not in White's plan. However, it is a flexible move that prepares 2.c4, 2.d4, 2.g3, and even 2.e4 depending on Black's responses. It increases the mobility of the knight, while restricting only the most vulnerable pawn in White's position. As it also covers h4, it reduces the vulnerability of the f2 pawn as well. It stakes claim to the center. Subsequent moves will reveal whether White's initial move coordinates the knight with the rest of the pieces.

 

We might look at these principles in light of how Paul Morphy played, as Valeri Beim does in Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). While examining a game in which Morphy did not play the simplest and most precise win, he notes, "Morphy, in all such cases, chose the path which put the greatest possible number of his pieces into play (14, italics in original). Beim thus alludes to the element of piece coordination as a foundational principle of Morphy's play. Beim continues: "he sought the move that followed the principle of bringing into play the greatest number of pieces in the shortest possible time (16, italics in original).

 

Beim's statement of Morphy's principle may serve as the clearest definition of development that we have available. It thus becomes necessary to explore further his analysis of Morphy's games. Does Beim fall back on the phrase "a lead in development" to explain the advantage Morphy wrought from game after game? Or, does Beim push forward positional theory in a manner that reveals the inadequacy of development as an element, pushing us to articulate general elements with fewer exceptions?

Alas, we find just two pages later, "[t]he position appears simple and clear, but requires accuracy from Black because he is behind in development" (18).

Makes sense to me. But, on the other hand, sometimes it's adequate to speak in general terms. Afterall, 1.Nf3 does develop a piece - puts a piece into play, moves it from it's original square, clears the back rank to allow for castling and to connect the rooks. But additionally, it supports the advance of center pawns, helps to control the center of the board, while aiding in defense. Maybe it's important to think about development with purpose as oppossed to development for the sake of development?  Development with purpose would incorporate, or consider, the enumerated elements, while development for the sake of development may or may not.